The UFC’s Marc Ratner submitted a Statement to the Congressional Subcommittee Hearing on MMA. The statement opposes the expansion of the Ali Act to combat sports citing issues such as state’s rights and

Ratner, the company’s Senior Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs, highlighted his long-time work with boxing and assisting in the passage of the original Ali Act. He testified about 20 years ago in which he expressed concerns about “conflicts, cronyism, and corruption” in boxing. He stated that the problems he saw in boxing are “absolutely not present in MMA.”

He highlighted the UFC’s “rags to riches” story of a business that worked its way up from the bottom and did most of the lobbying from state to state by itself, without help from any other MMA organization or promotion.

Ratner emphasized that state regulation works and federal oversight were be an overreach by government.

In addition, he addressed the many mixed martial artists, including female fighters, that have worked themselves into positions where “[d]ozens upon dozens” are millionaires because of the opportunities provided by the UFC. He also expressed the fact that only a “very small minority of fighters” are supporting this legislation.

Ratner also argued that the reason for the Ali Act was to address corruption in “so-called sanctioning organizations.” He described these as “privately run businesses that rank fighters for a fee.” Unlike these boxing sham organizations that either pushed or held back boxers, MMA does not rely on sanctioning organizations. He cited the UFC rankings which are voted on by sports reporters. He added, “[w]e put on the fights that fans want to see and they want to see competitive fights.”

He concluded that the proposed legislation would impose boxing’s sanctioning organization model onto MMA. He claimed that MMA is predictable and transparent in its current state. He also warned that the growing number of sanctioning organizations in boxing has created a lack of uniformity in the sports and its rankings.

Ratner’s argument against the proposed legislation is plausible based on his viewpoint of the reasons behind the enactment of the original Ali Act. At this point, the proposed legislation mirrors the Ali Act without any specific differences between the original and the proposed expansion of the law. The argument that there is nothing wrong with MMA is a bright line view and in comparison to boxing at the time that lawmakers sought to enact the Ali Act might be true. But, it’s hard to say that just a minority of MMA fighters support the act. Of course, there are some that do not want to publicly support the Ali Act expansion for concern of repercussions.

Ratner also suggests that the UFC rankings are independent because sports reporters provide the rankings. Who is it that picks these sports reporters?

His point that numerous sanctioning bodies in boxing creates uncertainty in the rankings is a viable argument. But does that mean that the expansion of the Ali Act would mean multiple fighter rankings?

The old argument of state’s rights versus federal rights is argued by Ratner as he suggests that state athletic commissions are able to oversee MMA rather than having a federal authority. It is true that the current system is working, but take the Conor McGregor incident at Bellator 187 as an example. Who has the authority to oversee McGregor’s actions. The Association of Boxing Commissions? Bellator? The UFC? The regulatory body overseeing the Bellator event in Dublin? While state athletic commissions and tribal regulators can enforce actions in its jurisdictions what happens with interstate issues like that of McGregor.

While Ratner provides some arguments against the Ali Act expansion, there are indeed issues in MMA that a federal law can address. The question is whether this proposed version can do it.